Australian Government is in breach of the UN Charter, Human Rights Con

[Radic]

90 or 94. 95

[67Special]

First up, I want to express my gratitude for the effort that both of you (lightning & mullray) have put into this thread so far

 

What saddens me though, is it seems to me that you are proving that Australians don't have freedom of religious expression.. well if this is true anyway..

There are in my view two answers to that proposition. Firstly, as was held by the Full Court of South Australia in Grace Bible Church v Reedman (1984) 36 SASR 376, s116 by its terms only regulates the powers of the Commonwealth. It does not prevent a State Parliament from passing a law which might have the effect, inter alia, of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion.

 

But even apart from that, as was pointed out by the High Court in Church of the New Faith v The Commission for Payroll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120 at 135-136, s116 does not necessarily prevent the Commonwealth from passing a law which would have the effect of making a particular aspect of a religious activity contrary to law.

 

I really hope that together you can come up with a case to successfully set a precedent that affords us the basic legal right to do as we choose so long as we are not causing harm or distress to anyone else

 

 

I was just wondering, does it matter that no-one is actually able to prove that cannabis is 'dangerous'?

 

How can I be charged with 'Possession of a Dangerous Drug' when that substance has never been scientifically proven to be dangerous?

 

Also, does it matter that the law refers to cannabis sativa? Could a biologist be called upon to identify a plant in evidence to be cannabis indica?

 

 

Keep up the good work guys

[mullray]

I was just wondering, does it matter that no-one is actually able to prove that cannabis is 'dangerous'?

 

How can I be charged with 'Possession of a Dangerous Drug' when that substance has never been scientifically proven to be dangerous? wacko.gif

 

Also, does it matter that the law refers to cannabis sativa? Could a biologist be called upon to identify a plant in evidence to be cannabis indica?

 

The answer to these questions is no. It is the spirit of the law which is applied - the wrong definition etc won't influence outcomes. Further to this, a plant botanist would tell you that in scientific terms there is no such thing as indica, sativa etc. I know that sounds odd to us but strictly in scientific terms the plant is called Cannabis Sativa. Regardless of this the law applies to Cannabis (full stop).

 

I was just wondering, does it matter that no-one is actually able to prove that cannabis is 'dangerous'?

 

Again no - the courts cannot enter this into judgements because their job is to apply statute law. It is upto politicians to create statute law which the courts are bound by. If you like, the government is the highest court in the land.

 

Lightening, I promised you that I would look at the constitution and I have enlisted about 10 other law students to help. Scary as it sounds, this is the stuff we live for. I hate to say it but to date there is nothing there to work with but we'll keep searching and see if we can come up with anything.

 

BTW - as an edit. I'm going to play devils advocate here and know that this may prove unpopular.

 

We actually do have rights within the laws of the country we live in. That right is to choose to break the law or not to break the law. Sometimes we just have to make the choice and decision and know and accept what we are doing and cop the consequences if and when they come our way. In many ways the law is a very fair thing. I know (god forbid) that as someone who has served prison time I am breaking the law today. I've evaluated this on the basis that if caught I face a small fine and will happily pay this fine knowing I have saved thousands of dollars in breaking the law. We do have that right - the right to choose knowing what the consequences may be.

Edited April 6, 2008 by mullray

[Radic]

check dis doc

Letters_to_Authorities.pdf

[mullray]

Radic, here's a simple one. Trademark your name. When they send you a ticket or infringement notice etc send them legals that they are in breach of your trademark. I've scared the shit out of a couple of government departments with this using legal letters that cite cases. I've hit them with walls of legal jargon etc. It won't work in court but it's a hell of a lot of fun Some poor government worker opens up your letter and then they spend thousands of dollars of the tax payers money in committees. Truth is, I will one day sue them for fun

[lightning]

mullray i thank you and applaud you for you devils advocate approach it is exactly what is needed. if I keep throwing up the arguments and you keep throwing up the objections then hopefully we will find an path through the bullshit to a winning argument that frees all of us to partake of our chosen herb without the govt looking over our shoulder

again thankyou

[Radic]

Truth is, I will one day sue them

 

same

 

there will never be peace without justice

 

i want my peice of dem too

 

you and i and so manny more have suffered at their expexce for too long now

 

pay day will come they will get whats been a long time comming

 

to all the workers of greed, lust and power

 

remember babylons walls could fall in 1 hour

 

irey thanx and praize for all yah support

 

forward cannabis

heal de people

heal da land

[mullray]

Lightening, I'm not raising objections so much as raising points of law so you understand where you're going with this and how the courts function.

 

My advice as with any lawyers advice would be to plead guilty, and explain your medical condition etc, explain that you are unemployed and need to grow your own due to the cost of buying cannabis through the black market, explain that you prefer to grow your own because then at least you know that what you are consuming and that your 'medicine' is not laden in toxins (perhaps explain that there are products being sold through hydroponic stores that leave toxic residues and contain carcinogens etc) and perhaps add that cannabis is the only drug that makes you feel half decent and provides you with quality of life and while you understand it is illegal, quality of life must be your priority.

 

My feelings on this are very simple. IF a cannabis charge could be beaten where there is hard evidence (I.e. a person caught in possession or cultivating and evidence to this effect that can be presented to the court beyond refute) that would have happened a long time ago. You need to realise that very experienced law professionals look for legal loopholes all the time and someone would have found this loophole many years ago (of course then regulators close the loophole but in the meantime one or two people may beat charges).

 

Of course, if you want to do this for political reasons and plead not guilty that is another thing. BUT Lightening, you will be found guilty on the charges you face, based on what you've told me. Further, based on what you've told me and my research, this case will not make it to the High Court - in fact, given the Supreme Court findings already, you have no legal premise to appeal a guilty verdict at Supreme Court level unless the judge errs in their decision (which they won't because they are bound by Supreme Court decisions). Yes, that's wrong and yes we should have the right to use mj and yes it is a victimless crime etc. All of which is pointless arguing in a court of law. These are not legal arguments in Australia.

[Radic]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE - Uniform Commercial Code 1-207

I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract

or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily

and unintentionally. And, furthermore, I do not accept the liability of

the compelled benefit of any un-revealed contract or commercial agreement.

 

 

Signed…………………………………………………..ucc 1-207

allways put that after yah name

[lightning]

Mullray I totally hear what you are saying and realize the risk and challengers involved however as I said in the other thread I don't feel I have much choice, I am no spring chicken and have never been on the wrong side of the law previously but I have just by virtue of having been charged can no longer work in the field I have worked in for nearly twenty years as constant police checks are now the norm in my industry. And random drug testing is now becoming the SOP. so I get one crack at this and am giving it everything I can. thanks again for what you are doing it is very helpful.

 

I will rework my arguments to show the comments of the court in those cases actually backs what I am claiming thereby hopefully diluting the relevence of the case law you have sighted and repost the document again as an edit to the other thread. it might take me a day or so, I have already started the process.

 

Please keep posting any other cases you find that are relevent. In australian law, my understanding is, that case law precedences in other commonwealth countries is admissible as guidance to the court as examples of good jurisprudence. So that might help you find a precedent we can use to help back us. every bit helps after all and he who has the most paper wins.

Your expertise is the research mine is critical path analysis together we might just crack this.

 

your help in this is invaluable.

Edited April 7, 2008 by lightning